9/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 41 (No. 6924) 2006
Director of Revenue Department vs. Mr. Pisit Tanabatchai

Re: Land Transfer; Land Allocation

The plaintiff received the Thailand real estate from the division of company assets from a company which subdivided land.  Although the plaintiff was a director with signatory powers, the plaintiff allowed Mr. Kho, an employee of the plaintiff, to hold the title of the land instead.  The plaintiff also allowed Mr. Kho to mortgage the land to guarantee the plaintiff's debt at the bank.  The above actions of the plaintiff are instances in which the plaintiff conspired with Mr. Kho and other parties to avoid the Land Allocation Law and the conditions of Section 80 of the Civil and Commercial Code (presently Section 74) to take ownership of the land.  When the second defendant acquired the piece of land for paying the unpaid taxes of Mr. Ko, the plaintiff sued for the return of all eight prang of land.  This is a circumstance of dishonesty.  The plaintiff therefore does not have the right to sue both defendants to withdraw the court order.

9/2549 Thailand Supreme Court Opinion 96 (No. 9145) 2006
Public Prosecutor of Saraburi Province vs. Mr. Niyom Prantanonk

Re: Investigation

Sergeant Mor and the first defendant are the children-in-law of the deceased.  Sergeant Mor's involvement in the investigation of the murderer was both normal and appropriate.  The actions of the first defendant, who was suspected and alleged to be involved in the murder of the deceased, were harmful.  If the first defendant did not commit a wrongful offense he would deny allegations and not would not confess to Sergeant Mor or the others.  The defendant confessed because he thought that Sergeant Mor would assist him to escape.  This means the first defendant demonstrated that he committed a wrongful act and Sergeant Mor investigated and found that the first defendant was involved in the murder and assisted investigators who were looking for facts in order to arrest and prosecute the murderer.  This means the investigators deceived the first defendant into confessing.  The investigation of the case is lawful.